Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aangan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. - Thanks to both and  for there huge improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Aangan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable film. Unreferenced, even IMDB has no info about it Gbawden (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. Imdb doesn't even have entries for some of the articles User:Crisco 1492 has at FA. This would have plenty of sources in Hindi in old newspapers off the web and has a notable director and cast so I don't see why we should delete it. Coverage on the web isn't great but that's the case for a lot of these older non English films.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "IMDB has no info on it" is not a valid deletion rationale. In this case, it's not even correct. As for there being offline sources: I agree. It's going to be a hell of a thing to show though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - Sourcing films like these are near impossible and films pre 1980 aren't exactly the easiest ones to source neither, I'd imagine if the nom looked hard enough he would come up with a few!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn - With thanks to Dr Blofeld for vastly improving this article Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep with grateful thanks to for putting his edits behind his words. Well done. Article is no longer "unsourced". Perhaps the nom will withdraw.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.